Where do you see your career in a few years? How will success be measured? Are you changing your approach from filling open positions to partnering with leaders to build a talent pipeline to meet future business goals? What questions should you be asking today?
An interesting article in HREonline raises the question about some of the "requirements" listed on job ads. In this article, the question is about a degree. Are these requirements truly job related, or is a preference that may have been in place for quite some time, that no longer has relevance to the job? Perhaps it is time to return to basics, to question the assumptions, and to determine the competencies and qualifications that are most often demonstrated in people who are successful in these roles.
Is That Degree Really Necessary?
http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/story.jsp?storyId=533348428&topic=Main
"A recent EEOC discussion letter opines that adopting education requirements for jobs may screen out certain applicants, and that employers shouldn't apply the standard unless they can show that the requirement is job-related. "
Have you noticed how long and detailed many job ads have become? It may be in response to the overwhelming numbers of unqualified candidates or simply using a job description where every possible task is anticipated. Is there really the perfect candidate out there who has all of these skills, attributes, and qualifications, in addition to exactly the right length of experience? Yet, how often do we hear from candidates that the role was not what they expected from the job ad.
While I encourage job ads to be well written and specific, they often remind me of resumes that have been added to over time, and are now a record of all tasks completed, rather than highlighting the skills necessary for the next position. A good product initially, it has evolved and may no longer reflect the needs of today’s business. Is it time to for a fresh perspective – to review the criteria and ask “Is that really necessary?”
Consider if the 80/20 rule applies. Is 80% of time spent on just a few activities? Could someone learn the others? While we may want the selected candidate to “hit the ground running” by demonstrating that they have already been successful in this type of role, where is the opportunity for skill or individual development? Does this role have enough scope for the individual to grow and learn, and to remain engaged?
With much emphasis placed today on attracting and hiring top talent, are we as committed to providing opportunities for the new hire's growth and supporting strategies to retain them? How do we hire for potential? It moves the line from the traditional recruiting role which is measured by time to hire, to talent acquisition which is about not only meeting today's need but also builds bench strength for the future.
So how do you measure your success? Have your measures evolved along with the role? Is long term retention of your hires one of the measures? Are you questioning established practices and asking "Is that really necessary"? What do you want to be known for - a follower or a leader?